THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE LORD
[p. 299] THE MANIFESTATIONS OF THE LORD
John 14:15 - 26; 1 Samuel 7:15 - 17
JT The manifestations, or comings, of the Lord to His people may be regarded in a general way. There can be no doubt that He comes to us where the conditions are the most favourable, but it has to be remembered that He comes sometimes for correction. The comings to Bethany indicate that He took account of what was there and came in relation to what was there. The passage in Samuel, I thought, might be indicative of the Lord’s circuiting, and the effect of it — Samuel judged Israel. We can see that John is peculiarly fitted to call attention to the way of love, which this gospel really is, as he himself was such an object of it. The references to love in John 14 are, I think, to impress upon us what the possession of it may involve, what it brings within our reach, and how the Lord having place through it affects and influences the whole house. John 14 does not show the full bearing of His comings and manifestations; it shows what they are to the loved ones, but I think the passage in Samuel, which may be rightly connected with it, shows that all the saints come in for the gain of them; so that he judges, as it says, in all those places and then he judged in Ramah also, “for there was his house”.
FWJ Would you say a little more as to the difference between the house and the other places he visited; are they connected with the thought of the kingdom?
JT He went in circuit to Bethel and Gilgal and Mizpah, and his return was to his house at Ramah. I thought Bethel would speak of judgment in the house of God. Gilgal of the end of flesh and Mizpah.
[p. 300] I suppose, of covenant relations. Then there was his own house where he lived, the place which love would provide. He judged there too; that would be more intimate, I think. But before we can have the judgment in the house, it seems as if we must know something about Bethel, Gilgal and Mizpah.
AMH I suppose we can hardly come to the intimacy of the family without approaching that way.
JT I think that is how the recovery has come about in our times. The addresses to the churches, which give the history of the assembly, would show that the Lord made selection even then, judging Israel, so to speak, according to these principles; but in the recovery there was a revival of the truth of the house of God which would have a very general bearing in the disallowance of the flesh; for there can be no room for the Spirit of God unless we recognise the house and the disallowance of the flesh. Mizpah may be taken to represent that in which God comes in in that way — and then you have Samuel’s return to Ramah where he lived, which would involve a certain liberty with him. One can understand how Samuel would come back to his own house, and then it says he judged Israel there also, and built an altar to Jehovah; he maintained the worship of God there.
FWJ Does Bethel show forth the unchanging purpose of God in connection with His house, and Gilgal the real start to the soul, the deliverance from Egypt?
JT Yes; the reproach of Egypt was rolled away at Gilgal. When Samuel judged there, he would be constantly reminding them of the fact that the flesh had no place in the things of God.
AMH Would Bethel be an awakening in the hearts of the saints as to what was due to God?
JT Well, it was a long-standing testimony to the house of God. It was one of the oldest witnesses [p. 301] God had; indeed, it dates back to Abraham’s going down into Egypt. It was between Bethel and Ai he set up his altar, but Bethel was a definite place in Israel from the time of Jacob. God appeared to Jacob there, and Jacob said, “Surely the Lord is in this place and I knew it not”. Genesis 28:16. God has been in His house for centuries, and many did not know it, but He was there. God had said to Jacob that He would keep him in all places whither he went; and before he goes on his way he built a pillar and poured oil upon the top of it. God never forgot that; He says to Jacob later in regard to Bethel, “I am the God of Bethel, where thou anointedst the pillar ... now arise, get thee out from this land” Genesis 31:13; then later still, he goes up and lives there Genesis 35:1, so that Bethel had a great place as a witness on God’s part amongst them. Samuel would have that in view in his circuits. In those circuits he was to be feared. When he came to Bethlehem to anoint David, they feared him 1 Samuel 16:4; he represented God. We read here that he judged Israel all the days of his life, even when Saul was king. I think he represents the Lord in the skilled way in which he carries on the judgment of God amongst us, even though the majority of saints have sought out another king. Samuel maintained judgment effectively.
FWJ His name precedes the prophets in Hebrews 11.
JT Indeed, he presided over them in his own day. When Saul was putting forth his greatest efforts to destroy David, the latter found refuge with Samuel, and Samuel was presiding over the prophets; 1 Samuel 19:20. What wonderful spiritual power it showed that he could carry on his service in spite of Saul! Thus on the one hand the Lord comes within the range of love, which would correspond with His house, but on the other hand we must recognise that in His circuits He takes notice of us all — even if we [p. 302] are not giving proof of our love to Him in keeping His commandments.
AMH How are you connecting Samuel with the passage in John 14? You began by saying the Lord’s comings were regarded in a general way.
JT John contemplates what Christ would be for us in heaven as Mediator. He says, “I will beg the Father [He does it on our behalf], and he will give you another Comforter, that he may be with you for ever”. What precedes that is, “If ye love me, keep my commandments”, that is, it is a question of what is within the range of love. Then He says, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”, that is a general statement; it is not a question of when or where, but that He does it. In the presence of the Spirit He left the door open for visitations, and His having a footing here; I think, too, that room is made for the other side, He circuits the saints in a judicial way.
AMH I was going to ask whether the judicial activities of the Lord are included in His comings.
JT I think so.
FWJ Was it after forty days of His circuiting after His resurrection that He prepared them for the Spirit’s coming?
JT I think He prepared them for His own coming too. The presence of the Spirit here left the door open for Him. The successor to Judas was to be one of the men who had assembled with them during all the time in which the Lord Jesus came in and went out among them, meaning that it was necessary for one who was to have a place in the assembly to be accustomed to these movements.
FWJ The Spirit would not come, according to this scripture, except there was a suitable state wrought in the soul.
JT He says, “If ye love me”. Then the Spirit’s presence provides a way whereby the Lord Himself [p. 303] can come in in these different ways. He does not need to come in angelically, as in the Old Testament; He comes in Himself, but Spirit-wise, and that continues.
Ques Do you mean that the Spirit keeps the door open in the affections of the saints for Christ?
JT Yes.
FWJ The assembly would not be formed for Him to make His manifestations to till the Spirit had come. You get the pattern of the thing in John 20, but not the assembly proper till the Spirit came.
JT It is a very great thing for the Lord to have a door opened here in the presence of the Holy Spirit. I think perhaps we have been a little inclined to limit the comings and the manifestations to a certain time. It is a very general statement, “I will not leave you orphans, I am coming to you”.
AMH The thought there is, I suppose, primarily comfort, but it would not be limited to that.
JT I was thinking, connecting it with Samuel, that the Lord, in coming, would have the whole assembly before Him; “His return was to Ramah; for there was his house”.
FWJ Is verse 21 individual?
JT I thought so. “He that has my commandments and keeps them”. Verses 15 to 20 refer to the primary state of the saints before defection took place, but verse 21, I believe, contemplates actual defection. But what they had collectively before the defection is now available to individuals on the ground of keeping His commandments, but it is connected with love all through.
Take the anointings in the four gospels by the women; these, taken together, would show what God can anoint here, whether in the government of God or the service and grace of God or the love of God. These converge in the assembly — the Christ, the anointed vessel. The women in Matthew and [p. 304] Mark anointed Him on the head, and their names are not given. In Luke the woman anointed Him on the feet, and her name is not given; but in John, where it is specially a question of love, her name is given; there is personal recognition. John gives us the persons, and Paul those persons in the assembly; hence John fits in so well with a day of small things, for it is a question of persons. So here, “He that has my commandments and keeps them, he it is that loves me”. That one has a name; John brings in the name.
Ques How do you distinguish between the visitations of Christ referred to in verse 21 and what we get in verse 23, “we will come to him and make our abode with him”?
JT There you have a further condition added in answer to Judas’ question, “Jesus answered and said to him, If anyone love me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our abode with him”. The “word” is a further thought to the commandment. The word involves that you have the mind of God. Aaron was anointed in relation to the tabernacle without sacrifice, meaning, I apprehend, that the Lord’s ministry was the unfolding of the mind of God as to what God would reside in. The word opens up the things in which God would dwell; that is anointed and Christ in connection with it. And I think that where the word is kept by one who loves the Lord, there is in principle that in which God can dwell. I think the commandment delivers us from existing evil, but the word opens up the structure wherein God dwells. In the passage referred to Leviticus 8:1 - 12 the altar was anointed seven times, meaning that there was one capable of sustaining all that was due to God in sacrifices.
AMH You have the scheme God has before Him, and you can make room there for the divine thought.
[p. 305] JT Yes, the Lord has helped us to move in relation to His mind. 1 Corinthians is a commandment, but 2 Corinthians opens up His mind more, then Colossians and Ephesians would be the full unfolding of it. God has helped us in relation to these things, and it is in that relation that the Father and the Son dwell with us. It is very interesting to follow up these thoughts. It is His commandment first; we cannot go on with the ecclesiastical system of things around: “Let every one who names the name of the Lord withdraw from iniquity”. 2 Timothy 2:19. But then there is what is according to His mind: and the word gives us that.
AMH The commandment has to come first to extricate us. Then the divine thought is that we should enter into the mind of God.
JT Yes. In our own time the Lord has not only delivered us from what is evil, but has opened up His mind to us in the ministry graciously supplied, calling attention to Paul’s doctrine. In Acts 20 as soon as the breaking of bread is mentioned Paul is brought in and his long discourse (verse 7), as if that was to characterise the house. He says to Philadelphia, “thou hast kept the word of my patience”. Revelation 3:10.
AMH Going back to the first day of the week, is your thought that the breaking of bread there is connected with the new beginning, and then the discourse to give form to it, the development in detail of what comes in on the first day of the week?
JT I thought so. John prepares us for what is eternal. He does not connect the Sabbath with the resurrection like the other evangelists; this latter would mean that the assembly has a place here in relation to previous testimonies. John immediately speaks of the first day of the week John 20:1, and again does so when the Lord comes into the midst (verse 19). He begins his gospel, too, with “In the beginning was the Word”. John 1:1. He accustoms our [p. 306] mind to eternity in the references he makes. Quoting the Lord’s words, he says, “No one has gone up into heaven save he who came down out of heaven, the Son of man who is in heaven”. John 3:13. “If then ye see the Son of man ascending up where he was before” John 6:62: “Father, as to those whom thou hast given me, I desire that where I am they also may be with me, that they may behold my glory which thou hast given me, for thou lovedst me before the foundation of the world”. John 17:24. Then he comes to the final thought when He says, “Go to my brethren and say to them, I ascend to my Father and your Father, and to my God and your God”. John 20:17. He has lifted us up to that; I think John makes the way for us to come into association with the Lord in what is eternal.
Rem We are warranted in the breaking of bread to have what is eternal before us.
JT I think we are. Then, if the Lord is brought in by the memorial, He would lead us to that.
Rem In regard to the manifestations, you spoke of them as being general and not referring to time or place. We are apt to connect them with the breaking of bread, at any rate the expression is often used on that occasion. Would you say a little more as to that?
JT I think it is quite right to connect them with it. The conditions obtaining as we gather together to break bread are certainly the conditions which would be suitable for His coming, but it would not be right to limit it to that.
Rem No; “manifest myself to him” might suggest any time, I suppose.
JT Yes; but conditions suitable to Him would correspond with Samuel’s house. He might have judged Israel without having a house, because after all a judge’s circuit does not depend on his house or his family, he has qualifications apart from those. But Samuel, we read, had a house, and he returned [p. 307] there, and there he judged Israel. He would judge there in the light of the family. I think we have to recognise the family thought amongst us.
FWJ If you have the first day of the week, you have that relationship established, My Father and your Father, My God and your God.
JT Yes; then in that relationship we have judgment in relation to the family. I suppose the judgment in the house would necessarily take account of the relations of the brethren. It is wonderful how the Lord is adjusting the brethren. He judges, so to speak, in His house.
Rem We read in Peter that judgment begins there.
JT Yes, quite — at the house of God.
AMH Public relations would have to be adjusted first, would they not? The covenant is more a public idea.
JT Yes. I think the family judgment would correspond to the dealings of Joseph, for when Judah and his brethren came in to the house Joseph was there; Genesis 44:14.
AMH The judgment would have reference to what was between themselves as individuals as well as in relation to Joseph.
FWJ When you think of the breaking of bread in the Acts, how does the Supper fit in?
JT I think the Supper has reference to the public testimony; that is the eating and the drinking. They are the same, of course, but the breaking of bread is one feature and the eating and drinking another. When the Lord’s supper is mentioned it is formally stated that “as often as ye shall eat this bread, and drink the cup, ye announce the death of the Lord, until he come”. 1 Corinthians 11:26. It is the Lord’s supper involving His authority.
Rem You said the other day that the Supper was external and that the breaking of bread related more to what is inward.
JT [p. 308] I think the breaking of bread has an inner bearing and the Supper is more connected with the public testimony.
FWJ Would the Supper be connected with the activities of divine affections in the soul?
JT No doubt; and there is food for the soul in it, but as regards its setting, the synoptic gospels would connect what we do publicly as a testimony continuing on what preceded. In John 20 it is connected with the first day of the week, because there we arrive at the assembly in connection with the purpose of God. In Ephesians the whole counsel of God is told out; there is correspondence between John 20 and Acts 20 — it is on the first day of the week. But the Lord’s supper is in relation to an assembly in a locality, and there is a testimony in it.
FWJ The Corinthians were not doing it. Is that the only place you get the term “Lord’s supper” mentioned?
JT Yes; but you get the breaking of bread mentioned several times.
FWJ Is the Supper in that sense a public act?
JT I think so. “It is not to eat the Lord’s supper”. 1 Corinthians 11:20. What he is speaking of is the manner in which they were doing things. Outward order is in view, and so the death of the Lord was shown in the eating and drinking of the emblems in the Lord’s supper.
Ques Does the breaking of bread lead to the Lord’s supper?
JT We have to be very careful lest we convey the thought that there are two things; it is one thing with two aspects. You could not have the Lord’s supper without the breaking of bread, but the breaking of the bread is the memorial; that brings Him in. It is in that way that the breaking of the bread has an inward bearing, for the Lord would lead you into the thoughts of God for you. What we do [p. 309] outwardly is a testimony, anyone present can see you eating; it has reference to the death of the Lord, “ye announce the death of the Lord”, 1 Corinthians 11:26 but the breaking of bread has reference to what the Lord Himself did when He instituted His supper, hence it is to call Him to mind. The Lord having a congenial spot, which I think Philadelphia represents, is of immense advantage at the present time, and it ought to stir our hearts up that there should be such a place. The Lord can, as it were, come to His house, for He not only judges there, but, as we see in Samuel, he built an altar there; there is something now raised up for God in his house.
FWJ He was the only link between God and the people.
JT Quite. Jehovah was rejected. “They have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me”, 1 Samuel 8:7. I think the mass of nominal Christians today have rejected the Lord; they have taken on what is according to the customs of the nations around. Nevertheless, it says of Samuel that he “judged Israel all the days of his life”; he kept on praying for them. If you pray for the brethren, you will have power with them.
Ques Will you say a word about His knocking: “Behold, I stand at the door and am knocking” Revelation 3:20; is it through His own?
JT I think He does things mediately, through those available. I think the powerful ministry the Lord raised up has affected the whole of Christendom. He knocked at their doors.
FWJ All that we see in Christendom today would have its seed in Corinth.
JT Yes. I think it is a most appealing thing that the Lord has a spot to which He can come; Samuel returned to his house. Then there is something for God too, he rears up an altar there.